On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 06:05:45PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Derek Atkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Personally, I like being able to grep through the changelog in order > > to see, e.g. whether a particular change made it into a particular > > release. I suppose I can always redirect the log/status command into > > a file and grep it there. > > People who must use and manipulate the sources after they have been > distributed definitely want ChangeLogs.
I agree with your conclusion. I think we should distribute a ChangeLog, but... > Also, I would note that a ChangeLog satisfies the GPL's > modification-notice requirement, and an undistributed svn log does > not. I don't think this little detail is correct. A ChangeLog also does not satisfy that requirement. GPL 2a) "You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change." [obligatory IANAL] Thus, change notification must be carried by the changed files themselves. I realize that a ChangeLog does perform most (but not all) of the *intended* requirement here, but that doesn't make it a true satisfaction, and the GNU Coding Standards make no such claim about ChangeLogs. (If we only distributed a tarball, there might be *some* room to argue that the modified files "carry" sufficient notice with them in other files in the tarball, but that's a stretch IMO.) It becomes very clear that the ChangeLog is insufficient when we realize that the GPL must be followed in whatever GPL'd work we *distribute*. We are currently distributing the individual GPL'd files via several public methods. Yes, the individual files are GPL'd works; they say so explicitly. So are we following the GPL? Yes. When I creatively modify a GPL'd file I will add "Copyright (C) 2005 Chris Shoemaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" to the file. This *does* legally satisfy GPL 2a, although it is far less useful than the corresponding ChangeLog entry. Therefore, we should distribute a ChangeLog, even though it does NOT legally satisfy GPL 2a, because it is useful, and it does well accomplish the intent of GPL 2a. And, we should continue to include notice of change in the changed files, because it DOES legally satisfy GPL 2a, even though it doesn't well accomplish the intent of same. There is clearly some room for improvement of the GPL here. -chris _______________________________________________ gnucash-devel mailing list gnucash-devel@gnucash.org https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
